Over the last forty years in education spheres, sustainability has been viewed as a possible solution to the environmental crisis (Rickinson, 2001). Recognizing the importance of sustainability, educators, activists, and policymakers have searched for ways to introduce sustainability into the education system, resulting in organizational change. Consequently, education for sustainable development (ESD) was developed and its implementation aims at changing educational system. This change has impacted school’s curricula, behavior, learning outcomes, and infrastructure. Eco-school systems are usually set up in order to facility these changes (Mogensen & Mayer, 2005) (Affolter & Varga, 2018), which includes curricula application (e.g. knowledge, awareness, behavior) and daily life infrastructure in support of pro-environmental behavior (e.g. recycling center, saving resources) (Kurland, 2011) Despite the importance of ESD change, sustainability implementation, which required organizational change, are processes usually resistant to change  (Moore, 2005); (Szabla, 2007)

Change theories offer frameworks for analyzing the processes and result of changes initiated by eco-school systems. As theoretical basis for our research, we used the following models and theories:

The Human Reaction and Action System (HRAS): This model may help understanding change and its corresponding resistance. The HRAS model includes three main change subsystems: content, context and process of change, and the reactions and interactions among subsystems and resistance to change (Szabla, 2007). This model is based on open system theory (Burke, 2008), which represents inputs and outputs to the change system, and the interaction among influences from organizational change and other subsystems.

Life-Cycle theory (LCT): Many management scholars have adopted the metaphor of organic growth as a heuristic device to explain development in an organizational entity from its initiation to its termination. Next to teleology, life cycle is perhaps the most common explanation of development in the management literature. According to life-cycle theory, change is imminent: that is, the developing entity has within it an underlying form, logic, program, or code that regulates the process of change and moves the entity from a given point of departure toward a subsequent end that prefigured in the present state. Thus, the form that lies latent, premature, or homogeneous in the embryo or primitive state becomes progressively more realized, mature, and differentiated. External environmental events and processes can influence how the entity expresses itself, but they are always mediated by the immanent logic, rules, or programs that govern the entity's development (Van de Ven, 1995)

The aim of this study was to analyze the implementation of the eco-school initiative in Hungary and Israel based on the HRAS model LCT theory. We realized that, even though there are many schools that were certified as eco-school, there was low awareness and pro-environmental behavior in many eco-schools in both countries. The quality criteria for ESD schools (Breiting, Mayer, & Mogensen, 2005) which was established on a basis of analysis of several countries’ initiatives for ESD implementation in the school system, demonstrates that the common elements of these initiatives is an openness for a change in content, context and processes (HARS theory). Namely, by analyzing change content, process, context, and their interactions and reactions, this inquiry will identify possible reasons for eco-school implementation barriers. Accept change as imminent element of the system and accept the reality that all national, regional  systems should evolve differently (Life cycle model) in order to realize their own localized goals within the global vision of ESD aiming at taking ESD in the center of education systems as it is necessary for sustainable development (Lindberg, 2015).

For this study we employed first the General Inductive Approach, typically focuses on the presentation and description of the main categories to compare the eco school phenomena in Hungary (Varga & Havas, 2018) and Israel (Goldman,, Ayalon, Baum, & Weiss, 2018) (Shay-Margalit & Rubin, 2017)). Our raw data sources were interviews with experts, eco-school principals, documents and former official and educational research databases both in Hungary and in Israel. After describing the most widespread whole institution sustainability education model of the two countries (the eco-school systems), we developed the main categories and revised them (Thomas, 2006) until the authors agreed on the final categories. We make the analysis according to the above mentioned four main subsystems of HRAS model: 1. content: what is the main features of the eco-school systems, the type of ESD / eco-school criteria (Hungary and Israel) 2. context: the culture of ESD, the national and international circumstances of the eco-school systems; 3. process: how the implementation processes of eco-schools criteria are realized 4. reaction: how the recipients schools react the changes initiated by the eco-school processes The interpretation of the eco-school systems’ descriptions obtained, and of the processes and external changes initiated by eco-school systems was done in a deductive way, and according to the organizational change model. As a closure of the interpretation process a common SWOT analyzes was performed for the Hungarian and Israeli eco-school systems in which the commonalities and differences revealed by previous analysis by the HRAS model was identified as strength, weaknesses, opportunities or threats for the further development of the eco-school systems. Research Goals 1. To identify and compare the process and outcome of establishment and implementation of eco school certification in Hungary and Israel 2. To explore the implementation of eco school certification process as a tool for promoting ESD in Hungary and Israel within the national level. Research Questions 1. What are the similarities and differences between the first initiatives, later development, and present processes of eco-school certifications in Hungary and Israel? 2. In what ways the eco-school criteria and program supported or barred the acceptance, ratification and implementation of ESD? 3. What are the schools’ motivation for applying eco schools certification and implementing an own or a common whole school ESD program? 4. Promoting ESD at which level? Within school? Within local community? Within pedagogical innovations? Through state organizations?

Findings • The initial motivation for creating the eco-school scheme and the later development of them were accidentally and unexpectedly similar in the two countries. • Minor differences in application and implementation can indicate national influences. The criteria were created by schools’ and external expert in Hungary; and by external experts in Israel. Later the criteria revision belongs to ministry of education in both countries. • There are easy criteria to implement in both countries, and others that hard. If there are differences among the countries, causalities can probably be described among infrastructural and cultural features. • Implementing education for sustainability needs support by the public (educational) policy institutions and officials. There maybe similar patterns how Israeli and Hungarian ecoschool fans can motivate principals and other decision makers to implement ESD. • Usually one or two teacher in a school is not enough for implementing their ecoschool agenda. There may be exceptions from committed principals. • There are few perfect “whole-school” ESD schools without eco-school title and some eco-schools that do nearly nothing and surviving as stowaways in the eco-school systems in both countries. Conclusions • There must be a person, a “change agent” in each school dedicated to the subject; • Principals or committed teachers are the “cornerstone” and not the ministry of education or regional authority of education in Israel and in Hungary; • Eco-school systems may survive for another decades if eco-school teachers continue innovation, collective learning, and they do not lose their credibility; • In the close future, it should be examined that to what extent stowaway schools in the systems risk the survival of the eco-school systems.

Affolter, C., & Varga, A. (2018). ENVIRONMENT AND SCHOOL INITIATIVES Lessons from the ENSI Network – Past, Present and Future. Vienna - Budapest: ENSI - Eszterhazy Karoly University. http://ofi.hu/sites/default/files/attachments/lessons_from_the_ensi_network-book_web_0905.pdf Breiting, S., Mayer, M., & Mogensen, F. (2005). Quality Criteria for ESD Schools. Vienna, Austria: Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture,. 2018, from http://www.ensi.org/global/downloads/Publications/208/QC-GB.pdf Goldman,, D., Ayalon, O., Baum, D., & Weiss, B. (2018). Influence of ‘green school certification’on students' environmental literacy and adoption of sustainable practice by schools. Journal of Cleaner Production,, 183, pp. 1300-1313. Kurland, N. (2011). Evolution of a campus sustainability network: a case study in organizational change. nternational Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12.(4.), pp. 395-429. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371111168304 Lindberg, C. (2015). Perspectives on ESD from a European Member of UNESCO’s High-Level Panel, with Particular Reference to Sweden. In R. Jucker, & R. Mathar, Schooling for Sustainable Development in Europe, Schooling for Sustainable Development Volume 6 (pp. 71-86). Switzerland,: Springer International Publishing. Mogensen, F., & Mayer, M. (Eds.). (2005). ECO-schools: trends and divergences. A Comparative Study on ECO-school development processes in 13 countries. Vienna: ENSI. https://www.ensi.org/global/downloads/Publications/173/ComparativeStudy1.pdf Moore, J. (2005). Seven recommendations for creating sustainability education at the university level: A guide for change agents. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,, 6.(4.), pp. 326-339. Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of the evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7(3), pp. 207-320. doi:10.1080/13504620120065230 Shay-Margalit, B., & Rubin, O. (2017). Effect of the israeli “green schools” reform on pupils’ environmental attitudes and behavior. Society & natural resources, 30(1), pp. 112-128. Szabla, D. (2007). A Multidimensional View of Resistance to Organizational Change: Exploring Cognitive, Emotional, and Intentional Responses to Planned Change Across Perceived Change Leadership Strategies. HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY,, 18(4). doi:0.1002/hrdq.1218 Thomas, D. (2006). A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27;, pp. 237-246. Van de Ven, A. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. University Academy of Management Review, 20(3.), pp. 510-540. Varga, A., & Havas, P. (2018). ENSI and its impact on the Hungarian Educational System. In C. Affolter, & A. Varga, Environment and School Initiatives Lessons from the ENSI Network – Past, Present and Future (pp. 142-148). Vienna - Budapest: ENSI - EKE-OFI. http://www.education21.ch/sites/default/files/uploads/pdf-d/news21/Lessons_from_the_ENSI_Network-book_web.pdf